Replies

Boy, where to start ...

First, you are abusing the term 'nihilist' mightily. Just because I disagree on your facts (not presented) and logic (imho exaggerating threats and making things black-n-white when the issues are complex) doesnt make me "nihilist". It just makes us in disagreement is all.

What you are reducing yourself to is name-calling.

This is an example of bunk:
"They must assimilate or destroy the culture they're in."
When my forebears came to this land, Know Nothings thought that Catholics would destroy America. Catholics didnt fully assimilate and become Protestants, and yet America survived. The Catholic Mexican workers here in the US have a challenge no greater than my great grandparents. You can maintain some differences in cultural backgrounds without 'destroying' the culture you are in.

This is an example of constructing a bogeyman wholly distinct from the proposal at hand:
"We're talking about rates hitherto unseen."
You may be talking about it, but it has nothing to do with the Bush proposal. We have already about 800,000 illegals each year coming across. We've had that for almost 20 years. People list out the horribles from immigration and I rightly point out that if that were so, we'd already be in the soup from the high levels of the past 20 years.

This Bush proposal creates nothing like what we've already had, and creates absolutely NO new incentives for illegal immigration. In fact, in my view it will - if and only if paired with law enforcement - help cut illegal immigration quite a bit. The legs to illegal immigration come from the abuse of documentation and the willingness of employers to 'turn a blind eye' to documentation fraud. End that, and you end large-scale illegal immigration.

"So, cliches and propaganda lines used as red herrings won't work with me." Truly an ironic comment.

I said that you engaged in hyperbole when you claim this would "destroy" our culture or "destroy" American. Then you say: "You really believe that has no impact at all on a culture?" Exactly my point! Of course immigration has *some* impact, but since when did "some impact on our culture" equate to "destroy our culture"? I think you are the one who needs to lay off the propagandistic phrases, my friend.

This is an example of strawman argumentation:
"A limitless spigot opened to allow anybody and his entire extended family a relatively high paying job in the United States, the wealthiest country in the world and to do so without fear of deportation."

The visa is not "limitless" but limited by the willing employees who cant fill those jobs with Americans.
"relatively high-paying" is a euphemism for the fact that
many of the jobs may in fact be quite low wage jobs relative to *our* standard of living, and high-wage only relative to a Mexican peasant.

"Nah, there's nothing in the Bush proposal to suggest uncontrolled migration as a result of this."
Quite so. No need for sarcasm. A temporary visa program is a controlled manner of migration. Again, you may not want that particular provision in our immigration law, but it is certainly a *controlled* program.

"It is evident to me that you are predisposed to conclude that illegal immigration is a great thing;"
More extreme rhetoric contrary to everything I've written on immigration on this thread and elsewhere. I've proposed solutions to enforcing our immigration law here, specifcally ways to end the documentation fraud the underpins illegal immigration, and suggested that we must enforce the law. Your ad hominems are uncalled for. Just because I think America can handle this problem successfully you distort that into it not being a problem at all in my mind. Please, grab a clue and read my posts.

Still waiting for a culture destroyed by immigration.
Something so 'obvious' that you neglect to back up your claim.

Lastly, let us to distinguish legal from illegal immigration.
What level of legal immigration should we have in this country? 1 million, 2 million, zero people?

First, stop using cliches and child-like phrases. Phrases like "black-and-white" are real, classic, leftist charmers. Alas, despite what some leftists may have led you to believe, some things in life are black and white. I'll respect your thoughts much more if you can stay away from leftist talking points and phraseology. It sounds too much like propaganda. Second, read my post carefully. I have characterized your thought processes with adjectives, and that is not the same thing as name calling. Again, you are resorting to cliches. I'm talking about your ideas, not you. This isn't about you, it's about the fallacious ideas you're repeating. Sophisticated arguments that are internally inconsistent and irrational are dangerous. Those are the kinds of ideas I've read in your posts tonight.

"Boy, where to start ..."

An explanation of how unbound rates of migration cannot harm a nation would be a good start.

With regard to nihilism, I am not abusing the term at all. Your ideas are manifestly nihilistic. It is obvious to any clear thinking, rational person that a population that receives migrants in sufficient proportions to it's own population will experience cultural change. How can you not see that? You claim that I must support that with facts? That's like asking someone to support the notion that bodies that have mass tend to fall in a gravitational field. It's obvious. We are both presumably educated beyond a need for that. By use of the word "destroy", that is what I mean. When a culture changes too much it ceases to exist, for all practical intents and purposes. Ask some of the ethnicities of Rwanda if you doubt it. Ergo, if the rate of immigration exceeds a critical threshhold, that culture will change "too much". Why is this so unclear to you? You stated:

"You can maintain some differences in cultural backgrounds without 'destroying' the culture you are in."

Again, that's an obvious red herring because you are not addressing my point. Yes, it can survive up to a point. If a population changes such that it's proportions reflect a switch in majorities and minorities; rest assured the culture will change. If that shift is a large enough percentage change your above statement is patently false. You see, I'm bored because I see this all the time in discussions. People simply can't use reason in discussions. This isn't differential topology either, it's a pretty simple topic.

You go on to state:

"You may be talking about it, but it has nothing to do with the Bush proposal."

Of course it does! That is the proximate contention at play. You claim that illegal immigration will not increase under Bush's proposal; I say it will and that to say otherwise is nihilistic. Why? Because as soon as someone physically crosses the border the majority of them will never leave. Everything about U.S. immigration in the past 30 years manifestly demonstrates that. People die to get here. They repeatedly try to cross 7, 8, 15 times until they succeed. Do you really think you can just nicely ask them to leave and expect them to comply? How are you going to enforce such a request in a nation of 300 million, with illegals spread all over the geographic confines of the nation? You see what I mean about nihilistic? THINK, man. Any proposal that involves physically allowing a migrant group into the United States is doomed to leave large percentages of that migrant group in-country indefinitely. It doesn't matter what Bush tells you. It's an actuarial reality. We know this from the insatiable desire of immigrants to get here in the past. It's an elephant in the living room but you deny it!!! And there's the nihilistic idea you have about green cards: do you really think, based on decades of past U.S. government behavior, that there will be any reasonable limit on green cards issued by this government? Does it even matter with the prospect of illegal immigration looming from such a policy change? This is not a "bogeyman", it is the power of reason. You refer to my comment about a "limitless spigot", a phrase aptly applicable to the above comments regarding physical entry into the U.S. But your reference contains no awareness of irony in that it only supports my contention that your ideas are nihilistic. Your entire belief system, or at least the subset pertaining to immigration, is based on a false view of reality. It is internally inconsistent. You say we simply disagree. True, but there are reasons why we disagree and I have outlined those reasons above.

Finally, you again refer to a red herring, trying desperately to inject it into the discussion. It is a red herring because any child with a decent education could answer the question themselves and there is no legitimate call for an answer. Boring. Stop with the red herrings and I'll respect your arguments more. Until then, I will continue to thrash arguments that I see as being insincere drivel parroted from the left, essentially propaganda, even if you yourself are not aware of the fact that you're doing that. Jeez a weez!, this is so irritating to have to walk people through formal logic, to have to be so explicit. You make a contention; I am bound to respond to that contention, not make up my own contentions. Then I make a contention and you are bound to address it just as I did. That's how formal logic works.

As for suggestions of legal immigration rates. Why do you want to know? So you can have another red herring to distract from the point? Let's stay on topic and try to be rational. How is it that we can expect the majority of immigrants who are supposed to return to actually return, in light of the aforementioned overwhelming historical data that suggests otherwise. You can follow that up by answering the inextricably linked question at the beginning of the long treatise (the part about unbound rates of immigration...remember?). But whatever you do, please address the contention.