Telling the Hard Truth – by Dave Freer


Telling the Hard Truth – by Dave Freer

Hello. My name is Dave and I came from a shit-hole.

My friend Sarah Hoyt pointed me to a self-righteous fury spewing from the South African ANC (the political party which has governed South Africa since the end of apartheid) about the idea of South Africa being a shit-hole and bad America was. I was born there, and eventually migrated to Australia, of which I am now a proud citizen, and which I love, and try my best to pay back for its enormous generosity in taking us in.  Now, South Africa is a beautiful country, with some fine people… but the ANC have presided over it now having one of the highest murder and rape stats of any country in the world not at war.  Corruption is endemic, and racial hatred – both white on black and black on white – if anything is worse than at the end of apartheid. Public Health is in a sad state, and education isn’t much to write home to mother about, principally because ‘writing’ might be challenge, and mother (adult education is a neglected disgrace) still can’t read. There are squatter camps, squalor, mud huts without toilets in the bush. Electrical grids are failing, potable water is a major problem. There are good patches of course. There are things which have improved. But it’s only not a shit-hole when compared to places like Zimbabwe. Any criticism from it is like a serial child rapist and murderer complaining about you saying ‘shut up’ to your kid.

Whether President Trump really said ‘Why are we having these people from a shit-hole come here’ or not… I would like say that I think it the most valuable statement about migration made in the last fifty years, and one that cried out to be said. What’s more I think saying it is not only refreshingly honest (because it is a common thought, but one no-one dared say it, and people need to hear it), but actually exceptionally good for both migrants and shit-hole countries. It’s a coarse, blunt statement, but it’s probably the only possible way to make the point effectively.

As I said, I am a migrant myself, and no, I don’t hate migrants.

But I do realize there is a problem that needs dealing with, if this is not to all end in tears. It is in fact VERY like alcoholism (which is why I used the opening line I did): you’re never going to solve the problem while you pretend it isn’t there.  Getting it out in the open, acknowledging the realities, both of how the people in the country migrants are wanting to go to feel about it, and of WHY the migrants move, is vital to the longer term happiness and well-being of migrants and the countries they move to.  It also is the only real chance that shit-hole countries will improve. It’s like ignoring a toddler’s tantrum in the toy aisle.  It’s not easy for a loving parent: but you’re no loving parent if you let the child have what they want. You’re just avoiding embarrassment and lots of noise – and possibly for that screwing your kid over for life.

Let us stop worrying about upsetting tender liccle feewings – which allow the situation to fester under a covering of ‘sensitivity’. Fifty years of trying that… have made matters a lot worse.

Reality: Almost no one migrates from a place to an unknown country if the place they’re in is not comparatively (at least in their minds) a shit-hole compared to the country they’re moving to. Anything else is like people pretending the alcoholic with the shakes and horrors doesn’t drink.  That doesn’t help the alcoholic or them.

The other vital point of ‘Why are we having these people from a shit-hole come here?’ that so many people getting affronted by the accurate ‘shit-hole’ part miss… is that this is first and foremost a question. WHY are we having them come here?

Let’s start with a basic premise. Your country and government’s first duty is to its own people. They, and their ancestors, for their descendants, paid – as the saying goes – in blood and treasure, for the shape the country is in now. It’s due to the people who live and lived there. I’ve heard various ridiculous arguments about wealth, security and comfort being due to almost anything else (from geography to mineral wealth to the legacy of colonial exploitation, etc.) None hold water, because there is a counter example for every one of them.  It comes down to the people and the culture of those people, which shapes that state. Sometimes it is put into form by a constitution, but that too derives from its people. The first duty any government owes – is to its own people.

So that ‘WHY’ is exactly what any country, what any citizen ought to ask.  And a good reason is not ‘because the migrant needs or wants it.’  If you’re going to include that reason at all, it has to come a long way down the list, well after ‘it will have no negative effects on my people’.

I’m going to stick my neck out here (for good reason, as I will explain) there are very few migrants from anywhere (particularly shit-holes, and remember I am speaking of myself) that are just a straight good bargain for any first world country to take, as is.  There are no jobs that Americans/Australians/Japanese just won’t do. They might not do them for the price you’re willing to pay, but that is a different matter. Working out if suppressing labor costs (and earnings) is a net good for a country as whole after the costs (in welfare, health, education and social cohesion just to name obvious ones, leaving out less obvious like ‘exporting money from the country to be spent elsewhere’) is a huge task, which depends mostly on the caliber of the migrants you let in. Here’s a clue: taking them from shit-holes has some big costs.

Taking skilled migrants… has some short term advantages. Your country gets years of training and experience for free. Whether it is really good for the doctors and nurses and the training of doctors and nurses born and bred there, is another argument, entirely.  Every country gets caught in short squeezes: but giving an easy out may be bad long term for its people.

That leaves a handful of those special, truly rare talents. Great sportsmen, mathematical geniuses… yep. They’re a win, no matter where they come from. But these are one in a million migrants. If they were all of the migrants… nobody would care or not welcome them.

Which brings me back to my statement that few migrants are just welcome, and why it is so vitally important for the migrants to hear the hard question: ‘Why are we having these people from a shit-hole come here?’ Because that does what we should always do: puts responsibility on the party who benefits. Being a migrant never can be ‘as is’ – because ‘as is’ migrants suck.

If – like me – you’re a migrant, then: ‘Why are we having these people from a shit-hole come here?’ asserts the most valuable lesson any migrant could possibly get to make that migration a happy, successful experience both for them and the country they move to. Migrants are migrating because their birth-country is, for some reason, a shit-hole to them.  They need the new country to accept them.  And that needs a two pronged approach that everyone has been too ‘sensitive’ and ‘kind’ to bluntly tell them. It’s like the alcoholic again. You’re not actually doing them any favors pretending they don’t stink and they haven’t fallen asleep in their own vomit. You can certainly help them by telling them if they give up the booze they can be a decent bloke. BUT they have to leave the booze behind and accept it was a problem.  The alcoholic that can’t do that, and the migrant that can’t do that… are never going to get any better. And just as not even the best effort in the world can do anything for an alcoholic who hasn’t decided themselves to give it up and change, not all the ‘kindness’ in the world will help a migrant who brings the shit-hole with themselves, telling themselves it is not a problem. All they’re doing is making a new shit-hole.

I still hold that migrants can add value and be welcome, no matter where they come from. But it’s a huge hill for them (not others, not their host country) to climb, a lot of blood and treasure to catch up on – and a shit-hole, and all that goes with it, to leave behind.  Anything else will end in tears.  Working hard on it, leaving your past –culture, country, language – behind, and embracing the new, will have the citizens meet you half way, help you along, and welcome you. Migrants need to know this, accept this.

Not saying this openly is not doing anyone a favor.

Dave Freer’s Amazon page is here.

301 thoughts on “Telling the Hard Truth – by Dave Freer

            1. “And finally, to my lawyer, who has helped me on this will, I leave not a boot to the head, but a rabid Tasmanian Devil TO BE PLACED IN HIS TROUSERS???”
              Got to love the classics 🙂

  1. …you’re never going to solve the problem while you pretend it isn’t there.

    YES!  YES!  And, while we are at it, in case I was unclear, YES!

  2. (1) Do not steal, rape, murder etc. (2) Learn the language. (3) Adopt the local attitude toward schools and how to treat people, especially if the treatment of women and children is different than what you grew up around. (4) Get a job, or the fastest possible training that will get you a job. (5) Meet people, be friendly.

    Not necessarily in that order.

    1. And if you have tattoos that indicate you have already violated item 1 multiple times to earn their permanent application to your skin, expect to not get a chance to pursue items 2 through 5 in this country.

      But of course, my writing that is raaaacis.

    2. It is amazing how all of this can be summarized by the “love thy neighbor as thyself” commandment from a certain preacher 2000 years ago 🙂

      Really. If you want to be a successful immigrant start off with a closed mouth and open ears/eyes.

      1. Yep.

        The whole thing is just the Law of Hospitality– which, folks annoyingly forget, had obligations for the visitors, too.

        Seeing a lot of stuff where they selectively quote the Bible to talk about welcoming the stranger, totally ignoring that it meant offering him the same hospitality as your family…and that a family member would be expected to, y’know, act like family.

        1. And not like ‘Cousin Ed’ (every family has one, may not be a cousin and may be Bertha not Ed but you get the point) the one who doesn’t get invited to reunions and has to sleep in the car when he DOES come to family gettogethers because he behaves that badly.

      2. But I don’t like myself that much.

        Seriously, ‘what I would want for myself’ gives some results that I think are much harsher than would be practical.

        1. That’s what proper childrearing and example-setting is for. I know I’m pretty horrible, but there are standards of behavior that have been beaten into my head (sometimes literally) since I could babble and roll around on the baby blanket. Please and thank you, lend help when and where needed. always treat a females as proper ladies no matter how young or old (within the limits of decency- its a reciprocal thing), clean up your mess (and take responsibility for the things you say and do), hold your tongue and judge not when you’re under another person’s roof… That’s the kind of thing that was explicitly taught, word and deed.

          Now the *other* aspects of social behavior, *those* weren’t so easy. Had to reverse engineer “not creepy but boringly average” from observed action. Outside the limits of the rote methods I know work, I’m pretty lost.

    3. I would add, for America, that we make fun of everything, especially sacred cows(including yours), and that free speech means all speech, even speech you find offensive. If this is something you can’t handle, you are not fit for the responsibilities of first world citizenship.

      1. A truckload of upvotes for this. If you can’t handle your sacred cows being gored now and again, you are not suitable for anything but resident alien status.

        1. Yeah, I’m so cynical, I would make it so no one who has come to the U.S. illegally can every receive citizenship, and resident alien status needs to be granted only if a certain set of requirements are met – English, literate, good citizen, etc.

          1. Not starting from a position of killing every single illegal is merciful and perhaps foolishly optimistic.

          2. The only problem is the average American these days is unfamiliar with reasonable English and is barely literate.

            1. To quote Professor Henry Higgins regarding the English Language, “Why in America, they haven’t spoken it for years!”

          3. I’m not on board for that first part; Mexico is a failed state and I find it a little hard to expect somebody who has been living there to take laws seriously. When they live here they should learn better. But I want them documented, I want citizenship to be harder than standing around while some politician polishes his transnational humanitarian rep, and the next time their goddamned army crosses the border they better damned well call ahead of there should be real trouble.

            1. I don’t want them voting for the same crap that made their home country a s**thole to begin with, the same kind of corrupt politicians who buy their votes by giving them government goodies. They can be resident aliens, allowed to drive and work, that’s good enough.

        2. If you can’t handle your sacred cows being made into cheeseburgers, we’ll just confine you to Harvard, with the rest of the precious snowflakes.

          1. Except we keep raiding that farm for people that style themselves as the ruling class and take the power to enforce their will.

  3. IIRC from fairly extensive reading on the Eastern European Jewish migration to the US, there were many organizations devoted to helping the immigrants acculturate, learn English, and become Americans. However, there was also a great desire among the immigrants to become Americans so they could forget the s**tholes they came from.

    1. Besides the private organizations helping the immigrants, many of the political machines Ward Bosses gave real help (in return for votes) to new immigrants.

      But yes, those immigrants wanted to become real Americans.

      1. No one is helped when the government in the kindness of their hearts (HA!) decide to set up policies in the name of cultural understanding and compassion that encourage immigrants not to adapt.

          1. This might be true in the short run, but eventually it will come back and and bite those politicians hard.

    2. Many of the people coming still are eager to learn how to make the transition to be self-supporting contributing members of the community in which they have settled. Some places still have programs to help immigrants to navigate the changes, in our area these are both governmental and private.

      Our county is a recognized as a major international refugee resettlement area.  (At one point we had some 46 distinct Laotian dialects alone represented in the area.)  Because of the challenges this placed on the schools the system created a Newcomer’s School to help children in the first year or so after they arrive.  While the students are assessed for future school placement and helped with learning skills they are also introduced to the behavior expectations.  

      My church’s single’s group adopted the school and serves with its PTA.  There they provide support for the kids in school and their parents, learning how to navigate public transportation, shopping, services and developing various life skills.  This can include applying for and keeping a job to how to track and pay bills.  (If you have not lived with our modern conveniences you won’t know how to use and maintain them.)  As our building is near apartment complexes that house many of these immigrants, we have developed an after school program for the children which includes tutoring and games.  At the same time we provide conversational English classes for their parents.  We also host a community vegetable garden on our grounds. 

      1. Because of the challenges this placed on the schools the system created a Newcomer’s School to help children in the first year or so after they arrive. While the students are assessed for future school placement and helped with learning skills they are also introduced to the behavior expectations.

        I think the Newcomer’s School is a great idea, having been through a couple myself (East Berlin when I moved there, and France when we were there.) They did most of what you described.

      2. Good on you and your mates, and best wishes for your generous work.
        This is a program that should be mandatory nation-wide (well, maybe “highly recommended,” because I’m a small-government, less-regulations sort of person…)
        At the very least, every immigrant ought to have access to some kind of similar program, which illegals WILL NOT by virtue of being, um, illegal.

    3. This has changed. It used to be that legal migrants understood that contract that by moving over, they were making huge changes in how they live, the laws they obey, and customs they need to observe. They also knew that hey could keep the parts about their old country’s way of living that didn’t hurt or contradict things in their new, chosen home country.

      But somehow, along the way, ‘remember where you came from’ became ‘don’t change your culture and way of life and take it everywhere you go, even if it breaks the law and violates local culture.’

      People are surprised to learn that I have no intention of ‘raising my children Filipino.’ First and foremost, I don’t even know how to do that – I raise my children to be good, hard working, honest people. Nevertheless, since it seems unexpected, I say “I will raise them Australian, because why would I have come here to Australia if I didn’t want them to be Australian?” (results in *blink blink blink* “Well, you have a point… but you shouldn’t let them forget your culture too.”)

      1. Dear kids,
        Australia has some wrong ideas about handling the criminal/medical/military/poverty problem of recreational drug use. Dutuerte’s methods work. Here’s why it still is better not to use them in Australia…

        1. Did you hear about that white guy who claimed he ‘identified as Filipino’?

          I pointed out on Twitter he could BE Filipino- by legally migrating there, applying for citizenship, and staying there, working for his livelihood there.

          (Dual citizenship is recognized in the Philippines, too.)

          Apparently though, he’s a jobless fellow on disability, to the chances of his gaining citizenship are rather low…

          1. Re: your blog on animal intelligence.

            a) The stuff about giant squid getting the size they do sorta seems to imply that they don’t just shut down after a single breeding period.
            b) I have a now backburnered project which has a major antagonists Dolphins. I need to deal with the priority RL so I can address the current front burnered project, so I can get back to working on that one.

            1. Yeah, I thought about giant squid and the larger octopi, and hell, even humbolts and such, but that was after I’d gotten lots more sleep.

              *giggle* on the antagonist dolphins. I’d be curious to see this!

              Seriously though, dolphins can be assholes – people look at me funny when I say I’m not that fond of them. Sure, they’re cute, friendly and have saved people, but I also remember that they’re quite capable of killing large sharks, are themselves meat eating predators, and murder baby porpoises and sometimes rape them after. I like porpoises somewhat better. Not sure why.

              1. First thing I gotta do is learn how to juggle a lot of complex fast action on the simple project.

                The thing about dolphins is that we have the known behavior, and the assurances of how wise, benevolent and mystically powerful they are. Well, if they are morally the same as or better than humans, what kind of humans would behave that way? How do those kind of humans practice magic?

                I basically did not have a choice.

              2. Just read about some dolphins somewhere. Their keepers trained them to clean up the pool by rewarding them with fish for paper. One enterprising dolphin started stashing paper under a rock. He (she? don’t recall) would tear off strips of paper for fish. Realized that big piece or small one piece of paper equaled one fish. Started teaching the trick to the kids.

                1. Yeah; a dolphin named Mr. Spock did it first, but the dolphin named Kelly was the one who taught it to the kids. They’d also lure seagulls in for killing and delivering (maybe eat some?)

                  I read about it on Twitter first, and …

                  Yeah, was a justified facepalm.

                  1. I can see it. Someday in the far far distant future some academic studying archaic languages is going to postulate that the source of the pejorative use of the term twit arose from TWITTER.

      2. THIS. That’s what I told people who asked me why I wasn’t raising the kids Portuguese.
        And I always told them “it’s not their culture. Culture isn’t hereditary. And I’ve acculturated.”

        1. I mean, sure, they’ll get some Filipino cooking, but I love making Japanese food as much, and Chinese, and… well, you get the idea. The habit of calling Aff/David ‘Uncle’ is a cultural hold-over from me, because I do think that calling someone much older than you just by their first name is very rude; but we have to constantly explain this to other Aussies. I literally could not make myself call Rhys’ parents by their first names without ‘Auntie’ or “Uncle” attached to them because it felt so WRONG.

          Happily, the Japanese do the same thing, so Vincent gets it now, since he watches anime and reads manga. And Aff has become an uncle in everything but blood since.

          1. Americans, too– Scottish, Irish, and “oh gads explaining this would just take too long, that’s Uncle So And So.”

            Most of my aunts and uncles were my dad’s first cousins!

            1. While it would be fun – if rather expensive – to throw the traditional Filipino birthday parties (huge buffet of food, cake, lots of sweets and ice creams and party games) we don’t know that many people, and the birthdays tend to fall during either summer vacation in Australia (Winter for folks up in the Northern Hemisphere) or during busy periods of the year. So my kids have made do with quiet, mostly family parties, and piles of presents.

              A young Filipino mum I’ve chatted to is amazed that “I do everything on my own.” She lives here in Australia, but her husband’s family are all here, cousins and all, so she has the traditional support network with the included babysitting relatives. I still tilt my head sideways a little when I am thinking about it on my own, because it’s only through strict household management – that I learned from my mother, who learned that from her mother – that things run smoothly. I jokingly refer to myself as the house quartermaster (to explain the ‘why do I need to regularly stock up on things BEFORE they run out’ to Aff once while we were trundling to the grocery with wheeled shopping bags; after that it made sense to him.) My parents raised me with the idea of ‘a full pantry will get you through lean times’ so I get very antsy if supplies run low. So is that a Filipino thing, or a Chinese thing, or a ‘Grandpa suffered through World War 2 and passed on the hoarding of food to son’ thing? (All of the above?)

              Aff observed that the Italian community in Adelaide take VERY good care of their Mamas, building an aged care community for them. He used to do basic IT stuff (usually virus removal, check ups, make sure their stuff ran smoothly) on a regular basis. He would describe these big, hard looking, tough looking men stalking through the door, but as soon as they laid their eyes on their mum, it’d be “MAMA~~~!!!!” and they’d rush over, hug, and kiss, and fuss and pamper and fret about how their mum was doing, and be giant piles of goo. “Don’t mess with the Mamas,” Aff would say. And because the Mamas liked Aff because he was ‘such a polite boy’ (hahahahaha) the Sons would like him too. (“Phew!”)

              1. “So is that a Filipino thing, or a Chinese thing, or a ‘Grandpa suffered through World War 2 and passed on the hoarding of food to son’ thing? (All of the above?)”

                It’s also a Southern thing, a Mormon thing, etc… *chuckle* We keep around a month’s supply at the least in each house for four people at need in canned, dry, and preserved foodstuffs. Pantry’s getting low when there’s bare space on the shelf. We rotate, first in-first out, for obvious reasons.

                Yes, the Grands lived through the Depression (twas great grands for WWII proper), but from what I’ve been able to infer and uncover, this wasn’t unusual when the old house on our land was built back in the 1800s. Preserving food is just what you did, because you never knew when the flood gods would visit, the harvest would be lost, a house catch fire, the family get sick, and so on with all the things we call “life.”

                Citified folks don’t do this so much. Small apartments, ready access to groceries, tradition? Several interlocking factors probably, like you said. And sometimes the citified move out to the country. *chuckle* Always seems the way that they get “adopted” and end up acculturating. Or they never do and end up moving out. But the ones that stay, ah, well now they ain’t so different from the rest of us after a dozen years/couple of generations or so. We still call ’em city folk though. *grin*

                  1. This. Even with weekly trips to town, we grew maybe 90% of our vegetables, and raised/fished/hunted about the same amount of our own meat. You had to preserve it some way. We kept quick foods in the event of power outages. That’s why my father also kept some open wells even though we had a deep well.

                1. Re: Citified folks don’t do this so much. Small apartments, ready access to groceries, tradition?

                  Cities have a history of crowded housing, particularly once tenements were developed.  The smaller the budget for housing you had the less space for living, no less to store food goods.  But with food coming in daily and a wide variety markets one could manage.  So, from early on people pretty much took it for granted that you could get what you needed when you needed it so long as it was ‘in season’.

                  March of 1888 brought with it one of the greatest blizzards that ever hit New York City.  The railways were forced to shut down, both elevated and standard, stranding people, and cutting off the movement of supplies.  Horse drawn vehicles also could not function as the road became impassable.  For people who expected to be able to pick up their food supplies (and coal) on a daily basis this did not prove pleasant.  (Note: This was in early days of electrical power and telephone lines, and as a result of the damage to lines cause by this storm NYC started putting the infrastructure underground.)

            2. I married a Latvian. They are very strict on who is an aunt or uncle. I keep getting corrected by Latvians. No! She’s not an Aunt. She is uncle Ancis’ wife. No! He is aunt Valda’s husband.

              1. If you were constantly getting mistaken for Dr. Doom’s kingdom you would be persnickety about using terms precisely, too.

            3. That was the case with a lot of my aunts and uncles, too. Their children were the ones that got confusing, because many of them had children that were near my age.

              1. Run into same problem. Have uncles that are slightly older than me. Their wives are my age. Since my husband is older than me, he is older than uncles wives. So, since he won’t call them Uncle/Aunt, I don’t. Kid, who is the same age as their younger kids, does. So in social circles we’ll get ask who is who’s siblings. Sigh. At that point we note that technically it’s Great-Uncle/Aunt. FWIW. Been that way for generations, on both sides of my family, so I don’t even think about it. Big Uncle Bob VS Uncle Bob, where “big” is short for Great; and it is possible, that Great-Uncle is really same age as or younger than Uncle. Starting to loose this with the next generation as fewer kids, with less range between older and youngest, are born (ex. max of 5 or 6 years, VS 12 to 18 or even 20 years, between youngest and oldest).

                1. Now that I think about it, we kind of changed around the time I became an adult, and now everyone is just “cousin” this or that. Made it simpler, especially since granddad was 51 when dad was born and dad was 40 when I was born, so I don’t even know how closely related many of us are.

    4. Wasn’t just them. That’s been the case in most of the waves of migrants who came to the country. The problem now is a cultural attitude amongst many of our elites that the “melting pot” is bad, and that anything that encourages assimilation is colonialism and white privilege.

      1. (Nods) There was a Pew survey a few months ago that showed that, after two generations or so, Hispanics identified more as Americans than as Hispanics. Great news, right?
        Not according to NPR, it wasn’t.

        1. It seriously did not occur to me until my 30s that the gentleman across the street, great friends with my dad, was probably of Mexican heritage with a name like Torres. And that only happened because they went on a visit to some relatives in or near the border.

            1. It was more the Oh, you have aunts/cousins in Mexico? reaction. I think he’s at least 2nd generation, but then, so is my dad. (His parents were Polish but possibly born in the US; I thought they’d been born in Poland and met here, but was recently told otherwise.)

          1. Have an Uncle, that every time they vacation in Mexico, he gets stopped at the border and grilled (funny first couple of times, not so much now). Looks Latin/Mexican/Native. Not. 100% Emerald Isle inheritance. Scots/English. Not only born American, but family has been in Oregon since Jessie Applegate. Plus, paperwork for daughters-of-the-revolution, prove citizenship back before 1770’s. My son could have the same problem; definitely looks come from grandpa (my dad) and great-grandpa (their dad).

            1. Honestly, I wouldn’t have guessed from looks. More Castilian heritage than indigenous, I’d guess, but what registered as a kid was “guy about my dad’s age, wears glasses, balding, is a contractor, on the ‘safe adult’ list.” They hired me a few times for random housework and occasional office filing.

            2. Black Irish!

              (Got a cousin who’s similar; his mom is KNOWN pure Irish, my side is presumed Irish, could pass as being from Spain.)

              1. or Black Scot. Great-Grandpa and his brother came to Scot/Hayden Valley (Yoncolla/Drain Oregon) from Scotland via E. Canada. Mom & Dad stayed at the Bed & Breakfast Inn they immigrated from in mid-1980’s. The bothers married Applegate cousins. Grandma Joked her mother and Aunts had to marry outside of the Valleys, everyone born within those boundaries were either siblings or cousins.

  4. It’s like ignoring a toddler’s tantrum in the toy aisle.  It’s not easy for a loving parent: but you’re no loving parent if you let the child have what they want. You’re just avoiding embarrassment and lots of noise – and possibly for that screwing your kid over for life.

    You are at best only temporarily avoiding embarrassment and lots of noise.  At worst you have just taught the child the lesson that by threats of tantrums they will get what they want and therefore guaranteed that the child will tantrum in the future.  Moreover, when you finally do decide that you cannot live with the tantrums and are not going to tolerate the behavior what happens?  When you refuse to give in any further it will be worse before it gets better for the child has learned no other way to handle himself.

    This lesson in human behavior can be applied to interactions with certain countries that have long been underwritten by the west, who have not been held accountable for their sides of various agreements.

    1. Doesn’t that sound an awful lot like the Antifa, BLM, Occupy Whatever and Pussy Hat protesting?



      1. Yes and I think Jonathan Haigt was onto something when he noticed this blossomed with the post Adam Walsh age cohort hitting college.

        1. *looks it up*

          Jeeze. No wonder mom was so paranoid.

          I’d pin it more at the point where total strangers would walk up and yell at a parent that was yelling at their kids, or otherwise not parenting in the way the stranger desired, and threaten to call CPS.
          Not sure if that’s related, though.

          1. In cause I don’t think they are although perhaps there is a small thread.

            In time, though, they seem to have developed at the same time.

            Adam Walsh is a sea change point where kids stopped being free change. While they argument is there was no need and it was press driven I think Putnam’s research on diversity dropping social trust is related. Walsh was that seed crystal the solution needed to crystallize out. If it hadn’t been that it would have been something else.

            1. And then this pops up on my news feed:
              though they are only 8.4% of the population, over 40% of federal kidnapping convictions are of illegal aliens.

              Add in closing the psych wards, the then-rising crime (soon to peak, thank God) and drug smuggling ops getting bigger, maybe it wasn’t as over-blown as one might think…..

                1. The guys at Power Line picked up on that, too:

                  Daniel Horowitz reports on a new study by criminologist John Lott. It finds that illegal aliens commit crimes at a disproportionate rate relative to their share of the population.

                  Lott’s study is based on data from the state of Arizona. His team examined data on all prisoners who entered the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017.

                  Of particular interest, given the current debate over DACA, is this finding:

                  While undocumented immigrants from 15 to 35 years of age make up slightly over 2 percent of the Arizona population, they make up almost 8 percent of the prison population. Even after adjusting for the fact that young people commit crime at higher rates, young undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes.

                  Thus, Lott observes:

                  Unfortunately, if the goal of DACA is to give citizenship to a particularly law-abiding group of undocumented immigrants, it is accomplishing the opposite of what was intended. DACA age eligible undocumented immigrants are 250% more likely to be convicted of crimes than their share of the population. Those too old for DACA status are convicted at a relatively low rate (45.7% more than their share of the Arizona population.

                  What about the illegal immigrant population as a whole? Lott found they are more likely than non-illegals to be convicted of serious violent crimes: 163 percent more likely for first-degree murder; 168 percent more likely for second-degree murder; and 189.6 percent more likely for manslaughter.

                  In addition, illegal immigrants in Arizona are more likely than non-illegals to commit sexual offenses against minors, sexual assault, drunk driving, kidnapping, and armed robbery, according to Lott’s study.


                  Lott’s general findings are consistent with data released by the Department of Justice showing that of those convicted of non-immigration federal crimes between 2011 and 2016, 21.4 percent were not U.S. citizens. By comparison, non-citizens are 8.4 percent of the adult population.

                  Milton Friedman once said of John Lott, he “has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” Congress should take Lott’s study into account as it considers what to do about the DACA population.

                  1. Such high conviction rates merely show the depth of bigotry that stains the collective psyche of the privileged whites of Arizona. More vigorous re-education is clearly called for.


              1. As a side note, that isn’t especially surprising, for two reasons. First, you’ve already demonstrated that you’re willing to break the law, even if it’s for a decent reason. Second, I’d like to see what happens when you compare illegal immigrants not just to the US population as a whole, but to the US population at a similar income level. I suspect, though I can’t prove, that the disparity would not be as high.

                1. So what? Everybody has agency.
                  The Marxist view that poverty causes crime is bullshit. Poor character causes crime. And poverty.

                  1. Think you might be overstating your case there, just a tad. Yes, poor character causes crime, and poverty.
                    However, those who have money and poor character tend to simply be raging jerks rather than criminals.

                  2. Poverty doesn’t cause crime. Crime causes poverty. (At least, violent crime.) Criminals aren’t smart or particularly well-socialized, so they end up poor.

                2. Problem: calculating income level.

                  Vs their official income with the rest of the frauds? Those people who on paper have no income, but get both cash and “help”?
                  Or vs their real income, as compared to folks who follow the rules?

          2. I am more annoyed at the oh so caring parent that tries sweet reason with a toddler. Toddler’s brains aren’t developed enough to understand. Sometimes children just need boundaries that they can’t cross.

            1. There is a kind of logic to toddler’s brains, it is just not adult logic. The Daughter did not stop trying to run into the street when she was told she could get hurt. She stopped running into the street when she was informed, ‘You can get squished, and a squished Daughter cannot play with Daddy, which would make Daddy very sad.’ (She had seen road kill.)

              1. Ah yes. My mother was telling me the other day that depending on personality, I might have to get graphic with my daughter to teach her safety. Apparently, I accepted “Don’t run out in the road; you could get hurt.” Maybe I just wanted to please, maybe I understood and disliked ‘hurt’ enough, I don’t know. My brother had to be taken to a convenient roadkill and told, “Don’t run out in the road; you could get squished flat like this squirrel.”

            2. Gee, you mean when you want to walk up to said parent and whack them, saying “you are losing an argument with an infant/toddler”. Have done the latter (whacking left off), quietly if adult is more or less trying, otherwise very loud “mumbling” as I don’t meet eye contact and slide by in establishment (usually toy/candy area).

              OTOH. If parent is not “arguing”, but really trying to deal tantrum kid they get words of encouragement “Darn it’s hard to have them out past nap time.” “Don’t worry. I wasn’t above sitting until they got done, just to keep them from winning.” I did. Usually when kid did not want to make the stop or really wanted said toy, and I’d said no. No, won because I said it (period, end of conversation). Kid “out-grew” the problem before he turned 3. Couldn’t reason with him. But he learned consequences. FWIW never spanked/hit. Never did time out. Never threatened. Never bargained.

              But then we only had one kid (two on one is great odds). He was a “by this time kid would be miracle” baby. And yes, by some standards was spoiled. We always say, “spoiled, working on rotten, haven’t gotten there”. He is now almost 29, guess we missed that window. Just as conservative/libertarian as we are, so we did something right. Also FWIW we spent/spend our time spoiling rotten the 4 legged fur kids. Not the one that had to grow up to contribute to society.

    2. I do wish the training worked faster, though. My youngest, at three, is doing a combination of tantrumming and “I scared” when he doesn’t want to do something. I do keep asking him if that works, and he does reply “no,” but the behavior hasn’t let up yet.

      1. Continue to fight the good fight, toddlers don’t have mental facilities like adults do but you are teaching them an important life lesson they will need to be well adjusted adults. Sounds like your three year old already realizes whining is not effective and he will eventually learn new coping mechanisms to deal with frustration or stress or anxiety ….

      2. Our three year old is also going through this…He hasn’t pulled the ‘scared’ thing just defiance and screaming. I’m looking forward to when he gives this up as a lost cause. I’m also dreading his younger sister hitting that stage. She’s at least twice as stubborn as he is.

        1. The Squire is two and a half, and still mostly pre-verbal (already been to speech therapy). He’s at the “you did something I didn’t like so I will scream” phase. Talk about nerve wracking.

          1. Yes, very nerve wracking.

            Worse comes to worse a toddler can usually be picked up and placed in a crib or playpen to scream it out.

            There is that second toddler-like stage that often comes with adolescence — and it is no longer considered acceptable to simply cage the child. A friend with six children taught me the following, “These are you feelings, and you have every right to your feelings. What you do not have is the right to be unpleasant and force them on everyone else. Go to your room until you can be civil.” It wasn’t magic, it didn’t always work, but it is an important lesson to teach.

            1. Heck, I taught the eldest that if he wanted to scream (when he was about four), he had to do it in his room with the door closed. That actually worked, since he’s ASD and (at the time) didn’t have the techniques to verbalize certain things, so he just needed to scream it out.

              1. Reminds me: Best description of a what a temper tantrum feels like from the inside I have ever read is in the first book of the Ramoma series. She is out of control, knows she has lost control, which frightens her and makes it harder to find a way in which to regain control. She just has to go until the storm has blown itself out and she is exhausted.

        2. Four year old boy boggled great-grandma by declaring whatever he didn’t want to do was “too dangerous.”
          She blinked, at looked at my husband.
          “Ignore it. He cycles through excuses. What he means is he doesn’t want to, and he realizes that won’t work.”

          1. The Daughter had only one complaint whenever we were in a shoe store. If she did not want the shoes she would declare the shoes were ‘too tight’. They might be falling off her feet, but she still said they were ‘too tight.’

            I realized that she had observed that once it was found that a shoe was ‘too tight’ it meant the shoes would not be bought, even if she really wanted them Therefore she had concluded that ‘too tight’ was how to say no to a shoe.

    3. Oh fun memories of watching 30-something throw at tantrum at a meeting because something he created had major changes while no longer employed by the company (subsequently rehired). My response, after looking at him with abject surprise (okay first time I’d ever seen this in an adult). “You will NOT yell at the person who made the changes, you can yell at the person who negotiated the changes with our bosses, and over saw them, me; this is no longer your responsibility. I WILL NOT give in to a tantrum that would put my toddler to shame. What done is done. Deal with it.” FYI, 30-year-old was screaming, heard outside of the meeting walls, I never raised my voice (well some, my normal voice carries about 2 feet), no one outside the meeting walls heard me (or so they implied). OTOH I think my speech surprised my bosses more. They expected tantrums from him, my response, in public, no, not at chance (FWIW I left after the meeting, went to where I could throw-up, then talked to my supervisors, the person being bullied, and went home for remaining work day). But then I wasn’t defending myself, that part came latter, but defending someone else, that I was not going to allow to be bullied to tears. FWIW the person pulling the tantrum was not an emigrant but a smooth talking self entitled bratty jerk. Nobody was fired

      I am not someone who directly confronts anyone, period. I don’t let tantrum people get their way, just ignore them (own kid’s toddler tantrums don’t count). Granted latter tantrums are usually worse, but I just counter the tantrum quietly to those that matter (not the person throwing the tantrums).

      1. Every so often, I get a glimpse into the alternate reality that a lot of folks live in, and I’m left… Speechless.

        In the majority of the workplaces I’ve been in, which are not the white-collar office sort, behavior like that would earn you the walk of shame out the door, or a swift beating. Toleration of that sort of crap, on a construction site? Not happening, folks. Blue-collar managers and peers won’t put up with it, and if you try it, you’re going to have some quick, painful lessons about what constitutes acceptable workplace behavior.

        I can’t even comprehend that someone would think that was even remotely acceptable, or that anyone else would tolerate it, let alone the people who are supposed to be running the company. Bizarre.

      2. I don’t know why, but it’s easier to defend others than yourself.

        Maybe because you can trust your judgement of who’s right when it’s not you?

        The part about your reaction is very, very familiar.

      3. Heh. I would have started with a “Back off!” that would have been heard, not only in the hall and adjoining rooms, but the rooms adjoining those, and on the floors above and below the one I was on. Then I would have told him that he could discuss things in a rational manner or we could go to HR.

        1. Yes. Well. Honestly, thought I was doing well not bursting into tears, for the person being yelled at; my normal reaction. Don’t do direct confrontation well at all.

          Also, FWIW. Me screeching/yelling, no matter the level, “Back off!” wouldn’t have made it out of the room. My voice just does not carry. Sigh. Now, mom, OTOH, only would have to whisper it forcefully, everyone in the facility, let alone the room, would have heard her, and everyone not sitting down, would have plopped their butts down immediately, chair or no. HR would have been then running into the room. Her voice Carries; capital C meant.

          1. Oh, I know it doesn’t work that way for other people, but I have a voice that has (once) quieted an entire bowling alley. When I get angry, I am lucky to be able to verbalize that much, so I need to stop things long enough to gather my thoughts in order to speak rationally.

            I wouldn’t have thrown up after, but I would have gotten the shakes, BTW.

            1. Tears, for me, is a rational response. When I really loose it (very, very, rarely), I would have been in the wrong, no matter how right I was; I learned that lesson hard. If that makes any sense.

            2. For me, tears generally show up when I’m trying to force myself to use words instead of violence. Such as when I was arguing with the assistant school superintendent over whether he had the right to put me in jail because my son was either absent or tardy too many times.

              1. I’m not saying I have The Death Stare; I am sure those instances of spontaneous combustion were purely coincidental.

  5. I’ve known several I immigrants, all felt the USA was far better than where they came from for various reasons, but those from the “shitholes” were the most vehement in that feeling. Those from Syria stand out in particular. It has been some 27 years or so since I last saw them, but I bet they are big supporters of Trump’s travel ban. I can just hear him, ” There was a reason I left that place”

    1. Some of the strongest supporters of the border wall are legal Hispanic immigrants. La Raza kind of leaves them out of the discussion.

      1. Look at the delays and hoops they had to jump through to get here legally and there’s little wonder at their resentment of the line jumpers and the folk who encourage them.

        One more cynical than I might suppose the high bars to legal immigration might be deemed feature, not bug, by those profiting from the illegal immigration agenda.

      2. I’ve met a few legel Mexican immigrants. Their opinions of the wetbacks makes the Klan look soft and liberal.

        1. Skip out on what folks will say– look at the names of the folks who are boarder patrol, or the guys who volunteer for the really dangerous things in border patrol.

          I know that the guy when I go through that choke point headed north-west of Las Cruces almost always has a very thick accent and doesn’t use as much sun screen as I do. 🙂

  6. You know, all these bleeding hearts and artists really are clueless. They want to make the world a better place, but don’t understand the amount of hard work and sacrifice that goes into that. Also, when only a small trickle of migrants move from country A to country B, they have no choice to assimilate and adapt, because anything else would leave them isolated and possibly ostracized. But when huge masses migrate together, they see no need to become a functioning part of the host nation. They just bring their own population, culture and all the baggage along with them. Give it a few decades, and the host nation will start to resemble the shit hole they came from. All one has to do is look at the ghettos that are inhabited by migrants who come from countries where violence, crime and rape are just part of a normal day. Is that really the world the progressives want to create? A giant globalist shit hole?

    1. In a word, yes. You see that giant globalist shithole would be somehow in their minds more equal and fair, and oh by the way they imagine that they and their buds would be running things. And of course because of their sincerity and devotion to the cause they would naturally receive a few modest perks and benefits to reward their hard work.
      As someone once remarked, all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

      1. Lol! They probably figure that they can just vote for the most progressive politicians who will give their voter base the most handouts.

    2. What? You haven’t seen all the world class artists in Somalia?

      Of course the only ones I know of are those who studied Torture and Human Anatomy, Post Modern Piracy, or the Fine Art of Fleecing.

      1. I don’t think I’d like to meet those artists. Western modern art is bad enough! Lol! 😂

    3. I’m old enough to remember the last time Fidel Castro opened his borders and permitted anyone who wanted to go to the US to go. (Transportation not provided). President Jimmy Carter welcomed all the refugees. In the process, Castro emptied his jails and released not only quite a few political prisoners, but exported lots of common criminals.
      Lesson: Don’t let your compassion for the distressed overwhelm your good sense.

      1. Bill Clinton remembers that, too. It is one reason he didn’t open our doors for Somali refugees.

    4. There is a huge difference between immigration and colonization. Mexico and central America are colonizing the American southwest. LA is the second largest Mexican city.

      1. Yes, there is a difference. Ordinary immigration will bring in only minimal numbers of people from various parts of the world who have to go through all the proper channels of legal immigration. I am an immigrant to Germany. My husband is German, but immigrated to the US where we lived for 11 years. No one cares about that. The refugee crisis however, is a Trojan horse, and the big difference is this is mass migration. There is virtually no screening of vetting process. Most have no useful skills or education. And if you think they aren’t colonizing, you haven’t been to Germany. The vast majority do not integrate. They take over entire neighbourhoods who they turn into no-go crime zones. They come here and start dropping babies like their lives depend on it. Face it, they intend to displace western peoples. It will likely take another couple generations to make whites a minority in their own countries, but our beloved politicians will do their best to speed up the process. Remember, eliminating whitey is progress and the only way to end white privilege. [Sarcasm]

        1. My Swedish ancestors farmed outside of Malmo. The little downtown near the train station feels Swedish but much of the town feels North African. I didn’t fly to Sweden to hear Arabic spoken on the street.

          1. Yikes! I heard Sweden is being overrun. They are possibly the worst off in Europe, and it doesn’t help that they have a smaller native population.

    5. “Is that really the world the progressives want to create? A giant globalist shit hole?”
      Not really, but they don’t learn from the past.
      “Also, when only a small trickle of migrants move from country A to country B, they have no choice to assimilate and adapt, because anything else would leave them isolated and possibly ostracized. But when huge masses migrate together, they see no need to become a functioning part of the host nation. They just bring their own population, culture and all the baggage along with them. ”
      Some time ago, I was reading about the push to move people (US citizens) out of city ghettos into suburbs. A trial study, using only a few tens of people, worked very well.
      So they closed down the projects and moved several hundred all at once.
      Guess how well that worked.

    6. This actually ties in with something I recently noticed (I’m slow, OK? It takes me a LONG time to notice patterns that aren’t visible all at once) in a lot of Science Fiction dealing with future socialist-like societies: There’s always an upper crust of elites with privilege oozing out their pores, and everyone else has to struggle just to make it day to day, with threats to their financial security and well-being a constant worry.

      I always saw these as cautionary tales, but the realization that I just had was that these “bleeding hearts” (at least the ones organizing things) likely see these stories as the logical progression that will put them into the leadership roles, lording it over everyone else (yes, I know we’ve talked about activists thinking that before, but it was just recently that I made the connection between that and the fiction).

      1. I’ve felt for a long time that many of the movies coming out, particularly the distopian stories, are like a play book to those in power. Read 1984, if you haven’t, or read it again if it’s been more than a decade, because so much in that resembles the invasion of privacy that tptb are capable of now with smart technology.

  7. In otherwords remember the reasons why you left, so you don’t try to turn the place you moved to into the place you left.

            1. I’ve nay the inclination to look it up, but it seems to me I’ve read that the terms of California’s joining the Union permit the state breaking up into smaller states if the proper hoops are jumped through.

              Sure seems the time is ripe.

              1. I never heard that for California but I thought that’s how Texas joined the US.

                1. Yes – true for Texas.
                  And doable, under the terms of the original annexation. But we’d have to give up being the largest state in CONUS, and that is a matter of pride.

                  1. I always heard that the sticking point in splitting up Texas was deciding which new state got the Alamo.

                    1. Now you would have to extend the list of Blue cities to be avoided (spent 2 years in the People’s Republic of Austin at UT for MA, oddly enough, in government aka political science).
                      If they weren’t so far apart, we could gerrymander them into a single state and quarantine them — but the Blues would escape into the Free Countries anyway, because the only thing keeping their cities functional is the presence of the Deplorables in their midst cleaning up after them.
                      Not that they would realize that was the reason, because at the moment I’ve seen no evidence that Blues can connect dots or add things up or whatever metaphor you wish: they think they can continually socialize their governance with no negative consequences

              2. the Grapevine road through the Tejon pass was originally constructed by Southern CA so that the FeGov didnt split it into two states right there.

                1. I’d say break up California along the San Andreas fault. Libtards get the Pacific plate section while the rest stays with North American plate. Then again, that would leave Berzerkely and Oakland in the wrong state.

                  1. Oakland is a festering shithole, but no different than a dozen other similar urban areas, and of little concern to anyone outside of Oakland.

                    Berkeley, unfortunately, is an infectious disease that needs to be stamped out.

              3. There’s actually a procedure for forming a new state out of the territory of one or more previously existing states written into the Constitution.
                The only such a thing happened, we didn’t follow it, because the original state whose territory was involved was in rebellion.

                1. Arguably, by remaining with the Union, the government set up in what became West Virginia was the legitimate government of Virginia, and was perfectly capable of implicitly agreeing that West Virginia should become a separate state.

                2. Virginia was HUGE compared to the other eastern states, and that gave them disproportionate power at the Federal level. Though Texas had more area, Virginia had several multiples of Texas’ population, and was located adjacent to the center of Federal power.

                3. It’s happened twice.

                  West Virginia, as noted, during the Civil War. (And the procedure was followed – Unionists in western Virginia declared the government in Richmond void because treasonous, and appointed a new government, and then that new government recognized the separation of West Virginia. (It continued to exist, governing Union-occupied Arlington and Norfolk.)

                  But it also happened in 1820, when the “District of Maine” was separated from Massachusetts as a state.

            2. It’s not. Those boundaries are drawn on county lines. The good people of the Mojave Desert would be consigned to the tender mercies of Los Angeles and San Francisco…and they don’t deserve such.

            3. Well, almost. The boundary presently along the north edge of Los Angeles County needs to be moved south about 20 miles, so the desert rats (being mostly conservatives and tired of being L.A.’s dumping ground) don’t have to put up with Old California’s crap.

              Also, there’s a big swath of ranch country west of I-5 between Santa Barbara and Salinas, that would not be pleased to be left to the metros’ tender mercies.

          1. Well, realistically, once the coast is split off, there is no reason to split off Sacramento, without the coast, Sacramento withers and most of the state employees move to the coast to keep their jobs. Also, the coast can HAVE San Jose.

            1. But keeping Sacramento would only encourage New California to use it as their capital, and New California’s state government would inevitably grow to fill the available space. I’m thinking you put New California’s capital someplace there’s not much space. Someplace out the way, even, like Sierraville or Lone Pine.

            2. Sacramento is my hometown, and actually leans pretty conservative if you don’t count the legislative immigrants. And it does have a port. (Well, West Sacramento does. Never heard of West Sacramento? It’s a whole separate city on the other side of the Sacramento River.)

              Not to mention that a lot of Sacramento County is the Delta area, which is both rabidly conservative and annoyed as heck at the water grabs.

              1. I dated a woman who lived there for years, and i realize that. if you remove the CA government for the coastal cities from Sacramento, it will return to its norm. Just make sure you send all the *state employees* for coastal CA to their new capital, too.

        1. Hmm. Now I have to go look up is Maxine is originally from California or whether she’s really a native Texan.

      1. Hey now. There’s lots of folk in California who look at the coasts with horror. They’re just outnumbered. (I am having trouble convincing seemingly rational adults that there’s a reason the Electoral College is a good idea. And even when it’s laid out that politicians would only campaign in the biggest cities, they don’t see the problems with that.)

        1. There’s a lot of folks here on the coast that look at this area in horror, but we haven’t been able to put together a majority vote to change anything since the disaster that Ahnold turned out to be as Governor.

          1. Mike, you will NEVER put together that majority again. Incidents like this are why. Incidentally, this happened in Issa’s district. I suspect a YUUUUGE part of his retirement is that he realizes he dodged a bullet when this was exposed right before the election and he won’t manage in 2018.


            Jerry Mosna was gardening outside his San Pedro, Calif., home Saturday when he noticed something odd: Two stacks of 2016 ballots on his mailbox.

            The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment.

            “I think this is spooky,” Mosna said. “All the different names, none we recognize, all at one address.”

            His wife, Madalena Mosna, noted their 89-year-old neighbor lives by herself, and, “Eighty people can’t fit in that apartment.”

        2. Firm believer of States using the Electoral College, by county, to determine their national votes, even if they split them or not; also believe in States Rights in this instance; I can’t get what I want. Not from CA but one of the states further north. So tired of being ruled by Portland Metro, Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and Grantspass/Medford/Ashland (mostly but not 100% I-5 corridor). I’m firmly stuck in the minority, as I’m in Eugene. So glad national vote not by popular vote, and we are not being ruled by LA/New York/Seattle!!!

          1. So glad national vote not by popular vote, and we are not being ruined by LA/New York/Seattle!!!

            Minor spelling error, corrected it for you.

          2. Not to mention that the EC amplifies the results beyond the margin of error. People don’t understand statistics and the nightmare of a nation-wide recount process.

        3. I’ve suggested that the Bay area could be split off and turned into the equivalent of Hong Kong — responsible for itself, used as a trade gateway, but otherwise Not Our Problem.

          Absent the Bay lunacy’s influence, Los Angeles is capable of sense, tho a good layer of LA’s current political tribe needs to be scrubbed.

          1. Southern California certainly has its fair share of problems, and is getting more left-wing (it wasn’t all that long ago that Orange County was solidly Republican). But yeah, the Bay Area is the bigger problem. The really nutty types typically come from up there. And the area dominates the state’s politics to a degree all out of proportion with its population size. It’s not an accident that the governor, both senators, and the state AG all come from up north, even though the south end of the state has the larger population.

        4. Eh, they’re all for the electoral college when it works in their favour, like getting obomber in office, but if a neo con is elected, not so happy. Personally, I don’t much care for either party, but the left is definitely worse. They are like a rabid wolf in sheep’s clothing.

        5. I have suggested, at (many) times that there is a medical issue that has not yet been properly studied and recognized: SIND – Saltwater-Induced Neurological Deficit. Curiously, sailors are unaffected, probably as any ND in their ranks (including civilian, yes) is apt to be fatal or close enough to be self-correcting whether by neurological improvement or by seeing a great advantage to find an occupation on land.

          1. Isn’t it true that human blood possesses the same salinity as the ocean?

            Cannot be simple coincidence. And would explain coastal craziness and Flyover horse sense.

        6. I am having trouble convincing seemingly rational adults that there’s a reason the Electoral College is a good idea.

          Sounds like me talking to my coworkers. VERY intelligent people, but this and other political things they are completely blind on.

          1. Oddly enough, such people seem quite capable of appreciating the logic when it works to their advantage.

            See: Clinton’s election in ’92 when he won less than 45% of the popular vote.

      2. There is the truism that our Federal system allows for fifty different experiments in government to be run simultaneously. That is a good thing. What is rarely noted is that the system does not allow for one State to exclude escapees from one failed experiment that want to try the same exact one in their new State. Bad thing.

        1. Precisely the problem that I have with flatlanders from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Green Mountaineers from the Socialist State of Vermont coming to New Hampshire and trying to turn it into a Utopian version of Sweden.

        2. Locusts. They pass their leftist “social democracy” crap, essentially devouring the state and driving it to bankruptcy then move on to the next and do the same to it.

          1. The definition of insanity is: “repeating the same thing and expecting different results.”

            1. Not even really that. The locusts don’t care that they strip the field bare. They just move on to the next. Expecting different results doesn’t enter into it. They’re not that self-aware.

        3. I want a return to state citizenship: you acquire it by birth or by law-abiding non-welfare dependency in a locale for five years after declaring your intent to become a state citizen.

          Part of the reason I want this is to give red states a chance to assimilate blue state refugees.

          The other reason I want this is to give blue states a chance to offer generous welfare to their born citizens without giving the same deal to everyone who shows up and asks for a check. I don’t believe it’s a good idea to give an apartment to everyone homeless, but if Minnesota wants to give it a try I think they should be allowed to give it an honest try and not forced to subsidize everyone who moves there and asks for an apartment.

          1. State citizenship is actually a pretty good idea, as long as people are still free to live in whatever state they want. But having to live there for 5 years before they can have voting rights and other exclusive state perks sounds like a very sane strategy. Worth a try at least.

          2. I don’t know if anyone here ever reads any leftist literature, but since I’m basically an environmentalist (not like the global warming alarmists), so once you get on a mailing list, y get bombarded with all sorts of leftist propaganda. Anyway there are people out there writing books and articles, urging other leftists to disperse into rural America and get themselves into entry level politics and find ways of infiltrating those communities. Before I realized this was a thing, I could already see it was happening in a little redneck mountain town in Idaho where I lived for four years. They had themselves a pretty tightknit community there. About the only thing holding them back was that the town had a good old boys system, and if you weren’t one of them, you weren’t getting into politics or any other position of influence. The only good thing about these leftists in that town is they weren’t the extreme kind. In many ways they adapted to the outdoorsy, redneck way of life. What positive influence they had was on promoting organic farming and gardening and strengthening the local appreciation for the grass fed beef that was available in abundance thanks to it being a ranching community. Just keep them out of politics, and everything will be OK.

            1. urging other leftists to disperse into rural America and get themselves into entry level politics

              Somehow that always seems to be their modus operandi: urging other people to do something.

              1. Well, the author of one of those books actually was doing it, while encouraging others to do likewise. He moved with his family to Oregon or something from California and tried to make a run for politics. Of course, he didn’t succeed, but that won’t stop someone like that from continuing to try.

  8. This is a subject I’ve written on before:

    I’ve been thinking about it and on reflection just about all of my really close friends are immigrants. What I think draws me to them is that they, far more than entirely too many native born, really appreciate what America means.

    What I most want in an immigrant (or a native born for that matter–but immigrants we can at least in principle do something about) is someone who wants to come to America because it is America and they want to be part of that, not someone who wants to come and bring the same third-world shithold they left with them, coming just for indoor plumbing and better economics.

    America is the nation founded on a creed rather than “blood and soil”. If that creed is what you want, if you look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and think “that’s the way it should be” (say, 85% agreement or better), then you’re the kind of person I want coming here. The rest? We can handle that. It’s the basic philosophy that interests me.

    And you know what? We can handle getting some of those who don’t care about the creed and only want the indoor plumbing and more money than they’d get “back home” so long as we get (and created on our own) plenty of those who do follow the creed, the dream.

    I just wish I knew how to arrange that.

    1. Canada has good immigration program, points based system that looks at education, language and work skills the immigrant have. And Canada often makes them pay for their own airfare, which proves they are motivated to start new life in Canada, because they are often from poor countries and savings are rare.

      Illegal immigration is what causes all the problems, borders of Europe and America are not secure and anyone can walk or hitchhike to wherever they want while very few illegals bother to travel through America to get to Canada.

      1. Exactly – places like Australia and NZ are fairly selective about who they allow in.
        Me, I wish that we could apply the laws that Mexico applies to foreigners in Mexico.

        1. Yes but whites aren’t allowed to use the same rules as POC. That would be racist if we did it.

  9. Could it be that we’re getting a variation of “I can call my brother a S*head (he could be at times) but you ((Outsider, non-family)) are not permitted to call him a S*head.” You don’t know him the way I do, you don’t know the times he was my own Rooster Cogburn – riding to the rescue.

    iow, it’s my home, I can call it a s*hole, but don’t any of you outsiders say it.

    1. From The Music Man… (as close as I can recall just now)…

      “I thought you folks preferred Eye-Oh-Wuh?”
      “We do.”
      “But I just heard him say Eye-Oh-Way…?”
      “Oh, we say it now and then, but don’t want anybody else to.”

      1. Oh thanks, now I have an ear worm working its way through my brain…

        You ought to give Eye-oh-wuh a try,
        — Providing you are contrary.

  10. The party squawking the most over here has been trying to pull a bait and switch for years. Most Americans don’t have a problem with immigrants. What most Americans have a problem with are illegal immigrants. Ah, but the Democrats have a running fit if you use the word “illegal.” Can’t point out that those who are here illegally are here illegally. By removing the word “illegal,” they pull their bait and switch: They pretend that anger against illegal immigrants is anger against all immigrants, knowing that most Americans have no problem with legal immigration. Thus they switch the argument from illegal immigration to legal immigration, which was never the point in the first place.

    Something they’re missing now in having a conniption about “sh*thole countries” (and what passes as an opposing party lacks the gonads to point out) is that if various countries are sh*tholes, there’s no problem deporting illegals to them, is there?

      1. If it makes you feel any better, I read it the first time went, “Huh?”, then re-read it translating it, correctly.

        Even proof reading my own posts, before posting, I pull that. Note to self. Don’t post tired.

    1. I have a problem with 1) illegals who prefer to stay that way and to bring their cultural problems with them (MS13 among others) and 2) people who insist that recreating Somalia, or Pakistan, or the bad parts of Guatemala, or Burma, is what they are going to do and we have to assimilate to THEIR preferences/practices, while providing social benefits and goodies.

      1. History is replete with large groups of illegals entering a country and maintaining their original cultures. England had the Saxons in the Sixth Century, Vikings in the Ninth Century, then the Normans in the Eleventh Century, India and China had the Mongols on several occasions (although they did tend to assimilate after the third generation) while the Middle East had the Muslims starting in the Sixth Century entering into Turkey, Byzantium and the Balkan states … I would like to call Trump a modern-day Vlad the Impaler, but that’s only in my dreams …

        1. True: The original cultural contributions of the people known as the “Vandals” to the Roman Empire are still celebrated to this day, including various ongoing historical reenactments in urban centers daily.

        2. Yeah, but… You’re parroting the accepted history, while the reality was somewhat… Different.

          A lot of those so-called “barbarians” were welcomed by the locals, who also looked forward to the opportunity to abandon the centralized Roman government. Why? Because of the corruption, the malfeasance, and the lack of liberty. Rome, by the point of the invasions, was a sclerotic mess, with lock-in to economic policies that would flatly boggle your mind. Not even the Communists or Nazis of our more familiar era dared to try to lock people into their jobs the way the central Roman state did. Dad was a soldier…? So, too, shall you be, and your kids. Merchant? Yep; you’re gonna merchant.

          Granted, this was in a period where communication and records weren’t up to the standards of today, but imagine just what a breath of fresh air it must have been, to have the Vandals come in and break up all that BS, and with lower taxes to boot. Not to mention, instead of the central government taking taxes for the military, and then not actually providing any military protection…? Oh, yeah–The barbarians looked good. Really good.

          Rome was not all it was cracked up to be, in popular history. Instead of transposing the modern US government and culture onto it, you would be a lot more accurate if you transposed either Nazi Germany or the Kim dynasty in North Korea. The fall of Rome was not entirely a tragedy; it was more like a large-scale Brexit.

          1. > Dad was a soldier…? So, too, shall you be, and your kids. Merchant? Yep; you’re gonna merchant.

            Those were best cases.

            If your appointed role in life was “hide tanner” or “dung gatherer” things weren’t so rosy.

          2. Kirk, did you mean this as reply to FlyingMike? Because none of the instances I cited had aught to do with Rome, not even Byzantium’s invasion by the Muslims. Vlad Dracul wasn’t defending Rome, nor were the Chinese and Indian nations visited by the Mongols. As for the Brits, they had long since sent the Legions packing.

            1. And if it was to me, I absolutely concede all these points about the Western Empire – Rome was more along the lines of 1917 Imperial Russia or Gorby’s USSR than any western civilization.

              But that does not change the fact that the Vandals were not the Salvation Army.

              Nor does it change the fact that the word Vandal has retained its modern meaning for a reason, and it wasn’t the superior propaganda machine of the Roman Church.

            2. No, not the Brits. They caved to Rome. It was the Gaels and Picts north of the wall that gave roman legions all the trouble, but really, the romans left because Rome was falling to pieces and couldn’t afford to go on emperialising everything.

        3. Well, at least those vikings/Saxons and Normans brought something good to the table. These weren’t a inch of uncivilized mongrels. Oh they fought like beasts, but they had strong societal structures which improved the host nations who were all still squabbling amongst themselves. The vikings had the best hygiene in practically all of Europe for example. They bathed once a week at least, while the rest had some wacky superstition that bathing was the devil. Lol!

          1. I have a hypothesis (alas, no evidence, just conjecture) about the viking tradition of more frequent bathing, namely that they bathed once a week because it was safer for them to do so than it was for people in more southern climes.

            Before modern sanitation practices, it was common for water to be contaminated by all manner of gunk, including sewage. But most fecal bacteria (think E. coli) doesn’t survive well in water below 10 degrees C, to the point where most wastewater treatment plants in the north don’t even test for it in the winter months. So the water in colder climates like Scandinavia was probably safer for bathing and drinking than the water in someplace like France, where the air and water temperatures don’t usually get that low.

            For a person living in England, France, Italy, etc., not bathing in water was a safety measure. The vikings didn’t have that problem for most of the year.

            1. Well, that might be the part of it, but in places like northern Germany (Saxons) and Denmark, even the southern portions of Scandinavia, would have had warm summers, at least comparable to England, although Scandinavian summers would be much shorter. I don’t know how much water they actually drank… Possibly none. But bathing was a big part of their way of life. As was bleaching their hair with lye.

    2. They need to be then corrected and if “illegal” is objectionable, beat them sensible with criminal invader – and then insist upon it… and ask why they are pro-crime when they mask it.

    3. Before Dubious Durbin’s dubiosity was (re)pointed out, someone suggested that Trump was being brilliant by forcing/tricking the left into saying the places were NOT shitholes…. and since THEY said they weren’t, why, there should be no problem deporting illegal invaders back to them, should there?

      1. Traditionally, the USA’s solution to people from shithole countries was to give them weapons and send them back home to fix things.

        Equally traditionally, this usually resulted in simply replacing the old bosses with the new bosses.

        Nobody seems to like my preferred solutions to the illegal invaders, which involves a giant trebuchet for first offenders and a dog food processing factory for repeat offenders.

        “Soylent Green is… oh, so that’s why it’s so cheap…”

    4. I have a major problem with illegal immigrants.
      I also have a major problem with a non-discriminatory immigration policy, similar to Dave’s commentary today. As a country, we should be allowing people to immigrate if they are of value to the country as a whole; and not detrimental to anyone. But then second you utter or write the word, “discriminate’ the progressive, liberal left’s heads explode and you can’t get a word in edgewise with a crowbar and sledgehammer.

  11. Your country and government’s first duty is to its own people.

    Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Thank you for this trenchant, though apparently non-obvious, observation from down under.

    The actual meat of the question posed by POTUS was “Exactly why are we prioritizing unskilled immigrants from places like these over those with skills and education from anywhere?” If all these folks contribute is “diversity”, well, we could get “diversity” plus “skills and education” in someone else – by definition, anyone else, from anywhere. We don’t get any more “diversity” from an MS-13 reprobate from south of the border than we would by excluding said reprobate and instead admitting an Electrical Engineer from south of the border. Or India. Or Pakistan. Or Kenya. Or wherever.

    I wonder why those decrying any selectivity in immigration are not loudly condemning countries with points systems for approving immigrants – as one example, see New Zealand: To qualify for permanent residence, an applicant need to get a certain number of points, with points awarded for level of education, job history, spouse’s education level, applicant and spouse both speaking English, a job offer in hand, skills in certain “critical needs” skill areas, and so on.

    Nothing at all about which #2-hole the applicant might come from, but a complete emphasis on what the applicant is bringing as their contribution to New Zealand.

    I think Oz has a similar points system, as do other countries. In fact, selectivity seems to be pretty much the norm for places to which one would want to migrate.

    But the US cannot possibly be selective. Because shut up, you raaaacis.

    1. A few years back someone suggested a list of fairly sensible immigration requirements and was pretty much asked, “What kind of racist, hateful country would have such policies?!” Answer: It was list of Mexican immigration requirements.

      My, how the cricket population recovered! I heard nothing else.

  12. Geeze, it seems like only yesterday that you couldn’t hardly turn around without some Liberal quoting “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Now it seems the last thing they want to ask of any immigrant is “What can you do for my country?”

    This is especially true of the “Diversity Lottery” visas — lost in the shit-hole sturm is the question of why does America need to import diversity? We already have plenty of that. Every “diversity” visa is one visa not going to somebody who adds more than just their ethnicity to the American Chex-mix.

    1. That’s because JFK would be considered center-right by modern standards. Inept in execution (think of JFK as a glib, womanzing George W. Bush), but sound on principles.

      1. An American Carol riffed on this a bit. It quoted JFK a few times, with characters in the movie in absolute disbelief that St. JFK was the one being quoted.

  13. The Establishment Left absolutely cannot afford to permit people to start saying that amspade is a spade because too much of their narrative depends on denying that spades exist.

    1. You can’t say “spade”!!!! We know what “spade” means, and that’s raaaaacist!!!11111!!!!!!

  14. “There are no jobs that Americans/Australians/Japanese just won’t do. They might not do them for the price you’re willing to pay, but that is a different matter.”

    It’s also important that we’ve made hiring people so expensive; the regulatory overhead (for hiring legally) just keeps rising. This also makes it difficult to accommodate, legally, the kind of people who would be willing to do these jobs at a lower wage. For example, my mother, in the seventies, worked in the fields picking asparagus and other vegetables. She worked alongside other “housewives”. But she did not do this full-time, nor did the other women. She couldn’t. She had another job, called “raising me and my brothers”. (Which I’ll tell you, was a full-time job…) The problem for the employer is that the per-employee regulatory burden rose drastically over that period, making it for all practical purposes impossible to hire three part-time workers when one full-time worker is available, even if the visible wage is the same with each part-time worker getting a third of the wage of the full-time worker.

    The invisible costs per employee probably meet or exceed the visible wage nowadays, and many of those costs don’t go down if the employee works fewer hours. It’s the regulatory burden that both depresses wages to the point people won’t take the job, and which makes it impossible to hire people who would take the job.

    1. FWIW. My sister & I worked bean and strawberry fields, well before we were 18; we are 19 months apart. By the time youngest sister was that age, this practice was no longer allowed, 5 years latter. Pole beans were replaced by bush beans (picked by machines). But strawberries still picked by hand. Matter of not allowing school age children to work fields, unless part of farmers’ family working the land.

      My cousins could work for their father driving combines as soon as they could reach the controls (most of them age 12), but my son, who is their age, could not. His great-uncle, legally could not employ him because he is not part of the family working the farm.

      1. I may or may not have seen a 10 year old driving a tractor (pulling a grain wagon) to the elevator while I worked in Flatter Than Flat state. The elevator owner may or may not have helped the kid get it out of gear and unloaded it, then turned it around, put it back in gear, and sent the kid home. (Kid was too short to see to steer AND work gas/brake/clutch at the same time.)

        1. I was about that age when the school principal looked at me and told me to drive his truck to the lunchroom. It was an old battered Toyota with a stick shift, and I had never driven a stick shift before.

          Actually made it OK. Went to the lunchroom and was about to drive back when who should appear but my parents. My mother had a look of horror. My father grinned and laughed. And I could not get the truck in reverse. Another boy had to drive it back.

          Had a friend, a year old, who’s father was a truck driver. It was not uncommon to see him and his older brother moving tractor trailers for their father.

        2. I must have been 10 or 11 when I was at the YMCA camp where my dad worked, trying to help put in hay, but was not very useful, since I was very small before I hit 14, so, since he was short-handed that day, he let me drive the tractor. I couldn’t let the clutch out smoothly to save my soul, but we finally got the wagon loaded and he drove it back to the barn.

      2. Of course the expense of government regulations on legal employees is a big part of it, but I suspect another significant factor is the immense power that an employer has over an illegal worker. No fussing about work conditions, no running to the NLRB, no union talk. And if things get a little tight just drop a dime the day before payday and La Migra solves your cash flow problem for you. Trust me, anyone who hires illegals as anything other than cash day labor isn’t doing it out of either pure economics or the goodness of their heart.

    2. Last time Californicate tried to raise some employer tax or other (this was maybe 7 or 8 years ago), Costco did the math and pointed out that 70% of the cost of each employee already went to the state, and if it got any worse they’d have to pull out of CA.

      This was about in line with what I’d discovered some 25 or so years previous — I looked into hiring part-time help for a job that would have paid about $7000/year. However, to do so legally, my total cost (payroll tax, workman’s comp, insurance, and a dozen other expenses I’ve forgotten) would have brought the total cost to over $25,000/year, which was more than my gross. Never mind!!

      But it sure points out why illegal labor is so popular — it’s significantly cheaper to pay cash under the table, even tho you can’t deduct the cost of those wages, than it is to hire legally. And since illegal aliens are rather more willing to take jobs with no “benefits”…

      Also consider how much higher your wages could be if your [all-legal] CA employer didn’t have to pay more than half your employment cost to the state. $10/hour could be $22/hour, and you’d still be better off than with all the insurance and workman’s comp.

      1. several industries employ their workers in CA as contract employees- essentially, freelancers… and its all nice and legal even tho you have to drive to their office and use their computers.

        (specifically, i am talking about the VFX industry, but i have been reliably informed that the game industry does the same thing)

        1. Oregon. Employer’s can’t do that; in theory. To be a (direct) contract employee, you can not be required to go to an office (if non-site type work or does not apply to builders/plumbers/etc), must have your own equipment, and the employer can’t control the hours you work (again site required specific work exempt). Also, state prefers contract employee be contracted to multiple clients. Last is a gray area if you can prove multiple long term contracts to clients, or multiple clients, just not at the same time. Specifically multiple of the above list must apply, if not all. Otherwise, state classifies the contract employee as an employee, taxes and penalties then applied, plus contract employee gets paid the otherwise missing benefits. Makes it difficult for people who want to experiment going it on their own. Tried being a contractor, fought the state to keep my status (I had to meet everything on the list, but only had one client without the history), but ultimately decided I hate looking for work, so found an non-contracting position.

          Employers are getting around the above rules by hiring through temp agencies. For the person working they are an employee (of the temp agent), not the client.

        2. Getting a job as low level on-site IT support for a company works like this –

          1.) You get contacted by a placement agency
          2.) The placement agency employs you with an IT Solutions Company
          3.) The IT Solutions Company has a contract with an entity that needs IT support, and you work in that company’s offices.

          The placement agency is still the company signing your paychecks.

          1. In the case of VFX, its basically so they can get away without giving any benefits no matter how long your gig lasts.

            1. and some people… well, idiots, honestly… in VFX think that the solution is to unionize. I think the solution is to get the state to enforce the labor laws.

      2. Same here. I had a modestly successful business that had expanded to the point where I could really use a helper; just someone to answer the phone, mail packages, clean up, etc.

        It didn’t take much perusal of the state regulations before I realized I’d have to hire two people; the second just to handle the paperwork overhead…

      3. California overtime rules mandate that anything over 8 hours each day is counted as overtime, instead of 40 hours per week in aggregate. The result of this is that you can’t do over-the-phone IT work from home, because if you end up with a client at the end of your shift, you can’t pass them off to somebody else so as to not go into overtime, so employers won’t allow their workers to telecommute.

        Why do I know this? I happen to know a highly-trained IT person who happens to have cerebral palsy. He had to return to California because of family connections, and he’s been searching for work for nigh on a year now with no results. Since he can’t telecommute—something he was perfectly able to do when he was in other states—he has to have public transit access (because Paratransit is hideously unreliable.) And ain’t nobody hiring an older gentleman, despite his high and continuously updated skill level. (And of course, the public schools can’t hire him to TEACH, that would be awful since he doesn’t have a teaching certificate. Arrgh.)

        1. What? They can’t be just classified as Salary, Exempt? No overtime. Probably one of the things I dislike about Oregon. Technically if you don’t supervise someone, labor or technical, non-professional occupation, you can’t be Exempt. Problem is Computer work falls somewhere in between, and employer’s get away with Salary and then requiring 40+ weeks. Anymore programming and general IT support is technical work, yet pay is Salary.

          You are expected to stay on the phone until current call is completed, even when going over quitting time. I got where I refused to answer the phone after 4:30 pm. If I knew the origin of the call, after 4 PM, would ignore it. Asked how I could get away with that, then: “Retirement. 2 weeks notice.” Got really tired of those who called after 4 PM on payroll day with a problem that “has to be fixed before 5PM”, they could have called about that morning.

          But then my job was never 100% tech support (FWIW I would have gone nuts). It was programmer, also expected to do tech support. So, I just got “too busy” (or too absorbed in code and thus “oblivious”) to answer the phone late in the day.

          1. Nope. I don’t know if it’s telephone help in particular or the job level, but they can’t, because it would be too easy to abuse.

        2. At least in SoCal, public transit is hideously unreliable and subject to schedule changes without warning.

          1. It’s decently run up here, but the problem is in having it useful. No big business hub for it to run to, and that means once you get out of the immediate downtown, it starts getting too far away from individual places to be useful to someone with mobility issues.

  15. That is perfectly normal in many agricultural areas. In Arkansas, the law specifically allows children to operate farm equipment, and in some circumstances to operate vehicles on public roads.

  16. If you’re going to include that reason at all, it has to come a long way down the list, well after ‘it will have no negative effects on my people’.

    I’d go with net negative effects, but the fact that I’ve gotten this far before finding something to quibble with is kinda impressive.

    1. He hasn’t pointed out that Blokhin et al. have proven conclusively that there are practical alternatives if we can’t simply deport them to a polity that will hold on to the so and sos. Sounds like a cuck.

  17. I’ve gotten myself stuck in moderation again.

    I think for the part of the comment that is perhaps least offensive.

    If the civil rights activists are dead set on preventing us from deporting a bunch of people, civil rights can’t be used to restrict depopulating the the Mexican side of the border.

    I actually have some new fun avenues of discussion.

    One is how similar the employment law violation conspiracies underlying illegal immigration are to slavery. If the working conditions are humane, we should legalize them for everyone. If not, economic necessity is no justification.

    Secondly is some interesting aspects of RICO. Some of the Ninth Circuit meeting places are in cities that are experimenting with stupid minimum wage laws. This clarifies the degree to which the judges must be personally benefiting from illegal employment fraud lowering the degree to which the minimum wage drives up the cost of living. But what about other elements of RICO conspiracy? I think historical Democrat race riot coverups, and the murders committed by illegals in sanctuary cities may qualify. What about damages? The economic harm might let parties in very many jurisdictions qualify.

  18. I usually jump in somewhere in the middle. Today I’ll just jump in. America is a nation of migrants. State to state migration following economic opportunity is common. My brother-in-law followed what he called the “construction carny” He built housing in seven states. But that isn’t fleeing a shit-hole, just looking for greener pastures.

    Myself, I fled a shit-hole, relatively speaking. Growing up in southern California in the 50s and 60s was awesome! Well, except for trying to breathe on some brown sky summer days. Anyway, it was a land of opportunity. But gradually things changed. The reconquista is gathering steam. Rich loony libtards were twisting state government into pretzels

    We first fled the LA megalopolis to Big Bear Lake. A mountain resort town. Awesome place to raise our daughter. She was accepted by the natives, but the wife and I were always considered flat-landers just one step up from the tourons who invaded on weekends.

    Eventually, Cal just got too weird and we moved to Reno. Great city, big enough to have anything you need but 15 – 20 minutes gets you out into the desert or mountains. Reno and all of small town Nevada is still the American West. We didn’t come for the jobs, mostly for skiing and breathing room. My school teacher wife waitressed and I worked as a handyman before I found my engineering job. We moved here, tried to fit in and get along and make the place better. That is what good migrants do. Find a place that fits you and work to make life good for you and your new neighbors. That is what Dave did too.

    1. The left has fuzzed the words.

      Migrants LEAVE. When California started the “bracero” program, Mexican workers came up, worked the harvest, and then went back home to Mexico.

      Immigrants STAY.

      The media talks about “migrants” like they’re a bunch of Romany paused for a while before they take off somewhere else. That’s not the case.

      1. One of the complaints about our current system is that, like a roach motel, migrants become immigrants because they cannot be confident of crossing that border repeatedly — once they’re in it is easier to stay. So one feature of an actual border policy would be such migrant work visas, allowing workers to commute rather than move in.

        Of course, back when the Bracero policy was in effect the living quarters required of their employers did not have to be of “American Standard”, just as good as or better than their homes back below the border. I suspect the regulations imposed by OSHA and its relatives would now make such housing provision prohibitively expensive.

  19. Speaking of immigration…

    Over at Instapundit, one of the linked headlines is about a Dutch woman who was denied a passport by a Swiss town because she’s too annoying.


    Apparently she’s a vegan who’s been complaining about cowbells.

  20. I always thought the idea was for a country to have a government with sufficient competence and integrity that having to subsist on rain water was a rare occurrence?

    If the Sh*thole Epithet Fits, Wear It
    By Sarah Hoyt
    Let’s forget for a moment whether Trump ever called any countries at all sh*tholes. It seems as though the only report we have of this is Dick Durbin’s and Dick Durbin is known to be a fabulist.

    However, let’s for a moment contemplate the reactions of the world to this word that might or might not have been said.

    Let’s, in particular, contemplate the reactions of the countries that thought themselves insulted.

    Take Haiti for instance. Anderson Cooper took offense on behalf of Haiti.

    Do you know what strength it takes to survive on rainwater buried under concrete?” Cooper asked. “The people of Haiti have been through more … they fought back against more injustice than our president ever has.”

    Cooper acknowledged that Haiti, like all countries, contained a mix of people but characterized Haitians as widely having a distinct dignity.

    “It’s a dignity many in this White House could learn from,” Cooper said. “It’s a dignity that the president, with all his money and power, could learn from as well.

    Sure, Mr. Cooper. But you know what? Whenever there is any big disaster, there are always people who survive on rainwater buried in concrete or the equivalent. I would expect you to remember the people who dug and dug in the rubble of the World Trade Center, long after it became obvious that there would be no survivors, hoping to get maybe a sliver of something that could allow a family to identify a loved one.

    Sure, every country has the good and the bad, and some countries, like Haiti, require more fortitude to survive than just about anywhere else. … [SNIP]

    1. I’m still astonished that El Presidente would have a meeting with *any* opposition that wasn’t documented by official White House videographers.

      Like rugs, they lie by nature. They’ve openly stated their opposition to him, as have their employers. Not having a record is stupid.

      On the other hand, it backfired on them badly… like many people, my first thought was that he should have said something like “festering shitholes” instead of just “shitholes.”

      1. From credible reporting I have read, a major part of Trump’s tantrum was due to Dustbin and Grahamnesty attempting to slide through a three-card monte of a DACA deal that would have granted amnesty to 10 million and contained sufficient bases for legal challenge to any wall as to require construction permits approved by the Supreme Court.

        It wasn’t simply that they attempted to play him, it was they attempted to play him for a fool.

    2. Concurring with Steve, a lot of his public messaging strategy seems to be deliberate.

      1. If Trump had a tape, then the MSM wouldn’t be able to run the meme into the ground, and the conversation would be over before enough facts and rationality have been brought into the light.

    3. I share your preference. I also wish that most of our political class wasn’t obtuse to the meaning and intent of our governing documents, didn’t lie out of both their faces only because a third face wasn’t available, and didn’t have spies like jellyfish rather than Hominidae.

    4. It was a closed meeting with (nominally, at least) adult Americans. So I say, tough shit. To me, it’s a breath of fresh air to have someone in office who is willing to call a spade a fucking shovel (to borrow a phrase, though I don’t remember from whom). If Disturbin’ Durbin wants to try to stir up trouble based on words used in a closed meeting, that’s his problem, and it shows how much he wants to screw over the country.

      1. A point cogently made by former George W Bush speechwriter (and no Trump apologist) Marc Thiessen:

        What Trump did was bad. What Democrats did is worse.
        Washington is aghast over the news that, during a closed-door meeting with congressional leaders, President Trump asked if we could exclude immigrants from “shithole” countries such as Haiti and the nations of Africa. If true, what Trump said is terrible. But what the Democrats did is worse.

        We do not know who originally leaked the president’s comment, though only Democrats benefit politically from embarrassing Trump in this way. But regardless of who was responsible for the original leak, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the minority whip, publicly confirmed what the president said during a closed-door negotiation, declaring that Trump “said things that were hate-filled, vile and racist,” and adding, “I cannot believe that in the history of the White House, in that Oval Office, any president has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday.”

        I’m sure it felt good for Durbin to get that off his chest. But does he think that publicizing what the president said in a closed-door negotiation has made an immigration deal more or less likely?


        What Durbin should have said was: “What is said between the president of the United States and the second-ranking Senate Democrat during a closed-door negotiation stays behind closed doors. I’m committed to working with the president to pass a bill.” Violating the confidence of the president to publicly embarrass him does not facilitate an agreement. It only helps to kill the negotiations so Democrats can blame the president and keep the issue alive for this year’s midterm elections.

        A party’s priorities are defined by the choices it makes. Yes, Trump’s comment was reprehensible. but he was willing to cut a deal to let hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants stay. Democrats took shots at the president at the expense of hurting those they claim to be fighting for. In doing so, they showed they don’t care about the dreamers. They don’t care about illegal immigrants. All they care about is getting Donald Trump, no matter who gets hurt.

        1. When no agreement. Congress & Senate does not do their job. It is Democrat Party’s fault courtesy of loud mouth Durbin. Personally. Send them home. Send parents home with US born kids, kids are citizens so they can come back anytime or stay with family who are already US citizens, or go into foster care; parental choice.

          Granted think we should make Mexico a state, maybe on down to central America border, but Mexico would be bad enough to clean up, let alone Panama, etc.; after all they all want to be US Americans. Not happening anytime soon or ever or likely actually advisable, but …

          Border wall length requirements would decrease dramatically.

          Don’t they have to ask to become a state? Guess they really don’t want to be US citizens.

          1. Most serious answer I’ve heard to the Mexico issue is basically approach it like we did Japan after WWII– trying to fix a deep-in sick culture so it can SURVIVE in a civilized manner– and then offer the choice, after 40 years, to become a state, become a country or become a Puerto Rico.

            1. Mass murder might be a bit easier, and is only a little bit more of a political non-starter.

              Because we are so deeply divided on the issue by stupid emotional arguments, we are going to let it fester until it is too late. Then when we finally can’t avoid it, we will make an emotional snap judgement.

              There is a case that if we stop charitable intervention to keep street druggies alive, drug demand will drop, permitting Mexico to get its own house in better order. Again, no political constituency. It isn’t clear that lack of charitable intervention alone will drop the drug demand that much. It isn’t clear that even 0 demand for drugs would permit Mexico to be anything other than a shithole.

              1. That case (getting everyone to pretend druggies are non-human) is even less likely than administering Mexico– and it actually has a decent foundation.

                Looking at what will happen when we’re forced to notice the Cartels are terrorist organizations.

                I don’t want to think about that, either.

          2. About the most hostile position you can have towards the dreamers is this: The parents committed a serious offense against the United States. If the kids really are loyal Americans, they would be willing to put their parents to death for that offense. Romulus’ love for Rome’s walls is the basic and appropriate level of regard for such military boundaries. For that crime, Romulus put his closet relation, his blood and milk brother, to death. If the Dreamers are not willing to put their parents to death for that crime, they are traitors, adhering to our nation’s enemies, and can themselves legitimately be put to death.

Comments are closed.