No mention of 9/11?

Posted by: merlallen at June 7, 2007 06:14 AM | Permalink to this comment

Gregory,

No thoughts on the pending immigration bill? I know adding tens of millions more unskilled workers to the country won't lower wages for corporate lawyers, but don't you figure your taxes will have to go up significantly? After all, these immigrants without high school diplomas will be consuming more in government services than they will pay in taxes.

Not as sexy as the foreign policy stuff, I know, but this legislation will have a much larger impact on the future of this country. Maybe it's worth a post on your part?

Posted by: Fred at June 7, 2007 06:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

Fred:

After all, these immigrants without high school diplomas will be consuming more in government services than they will pay in taxes.

"The cost-benefit approach clearly suggests that issues other than the
sign of the bottom line will determine the direction of the immigration
debate. After all, this bottom line is neither overwhelmingly positive
nor overwhelmingly negative - and a prudent person would probably
conclude that it is pretty close to zero." (George Borjas, Heaven's Door, p. 126)

Borjas advocates a more restrictionist immigration policy, and his work is often cited by those with similar views.

. . . adding tens of millions more unskilled workers . . .

I haven't taken the time to study the present bill, so I have nothing of my own to say about it. This article is of interest.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070604-061740-4338r.htm

It suggests that, whatever drawbacks the bill has from a restrictionist standpoint, it will reduce illegal immigration in comparison with the status quo.

Posted by: David Tomlin at June 7, 2007 12:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

Fred:

1: In your analysis do you include the inflationary effect of attempting to fill these jobs with "willing" Americans at "acceptable" pay rates? (if you're one of those folks who think raising the minimum wage two dollars over five years is going to destroy small business, think about the effect of what you position here)

2: If there are millions of jobs for low skilled uneducated workers do you believe that filling them with Americans will somehow change the economic equation since regardless of who fills those jobs, they will consume more in benefits than they pay in taxes?

Posted by: tregen at June 7, 2007 03:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

David Tomlin:

Checking page 126 of Heaven's Door, it's not clear that Borjas is talking specifically about unskilled immigration there, rather than immigration in general. If you check Borjas's new blog (you can get there from www.borjas.com, he thinks the current immigration bill is a travesty. The only thing he thinks is good in it is the proposal to go to a point system for skilled immigrants in the future (like Canada).

Tregen:

"If there are millions of jobs for low skilled uneducated workers do you believe that filling them with Americans will somehow change the economic equation since regardless of who fills those jobs, they will consume more in benefits than they pay in taxes?"

If two of your teenage sons work 20 hours per week as landscapers, they will consume less in government benefits than one Mexican immigrant working 40 hours per week. Your kids are most likely covered under your health insurance, they won't be applying for the EITC like legalized Mexican immigrants will be, etc.

Posted by: Fred at June 7, 2007 06:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

Is this really what it has come down to Gregory? Petty sniping at the President for how many times he says the word freedom in a speech?

That is just sad..

Posted by: Del Simmons at June 7, 2007 07:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg-

"P.S. Ayman Nour merited a fleeting mention, though oddly enough, none of these folks. Wonder why?"

I'll assume youre being facetious, since juxtaposing Nour's cause celebre with that of the Muslim Bro'hood is night and day. For starters, Nour's seminal al-Ghad party literally means "Tomorrow."

As in, presumably, hope spings eternal...

The Brotherhood, conversely, speaks of politics, law and society as part of a retrograde landscape that ought to be regulated by the bitter dust of Islamic law.

As in, presumably, turn back the clock and there stands Zawahiri...

Moreover, that Bush uses the word freedom forty or 40, 000 times might seem rhetorically trite to you, but to folks like Nour, Sharansky and Havel-or to those exiled "Damascus whores"-their legacy of vigilance is how the word freedom fell, and still falls, on deaf ears.

Nour reminds and advises us that Egypt would turn democratic tomorrow, given freedom's medicinal "rhapsody," as you like to coin the phrase. Maybe, maybe not. What isnt in doubt is that somewhere along the line, Nour heard somebody like Bush or Reagan or one of his own daring compatriots from a once-democratic Eygpt use the word freedom, and he felt the golden impact of it.

Maybe that's why his party stands for the hopes of an enlightened tomorrow in contrast to what dupes like Zawihiri prescribe.

Posted by: reshufflex at June 7, 2007 09:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

Reshufflex:

I'll assume youre being facetious, since juxtaposing Nour's cause celebre with that of the Muslim Bro'hood is night and day.

So your notion of 'freedom' doesn't include freedom of speech for people you disagree with?

Posted by: David Tomlin at June 7, 2007 10:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Listening to Bush use words like “freedom” and “liberty” is like a crack whore lecturing about “self-control” and “piety”.

I doubt democrats in the ME will look at George Bush like Eastern European democrats looked at Ronald Reagan. I mean Reagan never invaded and occupied an Eastern European nation and set up torture chambers and spreading terrorism.

Posted by: someotherdude at June 7, 2007 10:26 PM | Permalink to this comment

DT-

"So your notion of 'freedom' doesn't include freedom of speech for people you disagree with?"

The Muslim Brotherhood can squawk until the cows come home for all I care; the exchange of ideas, stupid or otherwise, is always preferred to the infirmity of forced silence.

But let's not gild the lily. The M/B is a vestige of another era, akin to the Klan, carpetbaggers and McCarthyites. Each prevailed, in their own untidy way, via deceit, ignorance and the exploitation of man's darkside.

Yet there is no moral imperative to accord them the respect that Ayman Nour earned and deserves. Don't compare men who seek hope to those who opt to ruin it. When the Bro'hood shapeshifts into something other than a xenophobic extremist cult, send me an email.

I'll give 'em a shout-out.

Posted by: reshufflex at June 8, 2007 04:32 AM | Permalink to this comment

Reshufflex:

The Muslim Brotherhood can squawk until the cows come home for all I care . . . Yet there is no moral imperative to accord them the respect that Ayman Nour earned and deserves.

Greg referred specifically to 75 supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood who had recently been arrested by the Egyptian government. I thought your point was that since you have a low opinion of the MB, you have no problem with the Egyptian government arresting its supporters.

The M/B is a vestige of another era, akin to the Klan, carpetbaggers and McCarthyites.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/06/egypt-military-trial-of-top-muslim.php

'The Muslim Brotherhood holds 88 seats in the 454-seat Egyptian parliament and is the largest opposition party. Its members run officially as independents because the Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt since 1954. '

Are you suggesting that the Ku Klux Klan holds nearly a fifth of the U.S Congress and is the largest opposition party?

In the unlikely event that many Arab countries become democratic in the near future, I would expect most of them to have an Arab nationalist party and an Islamist party as their two principal parties.

Were you one of the people who expected Westernized liberals to win the Iraqi elections?

Posted by: David Tomlin at June 8, 2007 10:47 AM | Permalink to this comment

Is this really what it has come down to Gregory? Petty sniping at the President for how many times he says the word freedom in a speech?

I think it's a reasonable snipe to make, because in American political rhetoric, "freedom" has become something very similar to what "class struggle" or "proletariat" was in any Politburo hack's speech -- little more than a pleasing and pro forma grunt. It's probably too much to ask from our shambling, degraded democracy, but it'd be nice if every now and then our "leaders" behaved as if words had actual meanings.

Posted by: sglover at June 8, 2007 02:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

As a matter of fact, I have a Liberty in my garage. A Jeep Liberty.

Posted by: Russ at June 11, 2007 10:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

DT-

"I thought your point was that since you have a low opinion of the MB, you have no problem with the Egyptian government arresting its supporters."

No. My point was that, as freedom goes, the mention of Nour and what he represents stands in stark contradistinction to the Muslim Brotherhood and their act. In short, what freedoms are they advancing, except for their own provincial ones?

"'The Muslim Brotherhood holds 88 seats in the 454-seat Egyptian parliament and is the largest opposition party. "

So what. That attests to no progressive merit, dispositively, within their agenda. I remind you that the US government was overwhelmingly run by slaveowners for decades, and the south was guided for years by a dixiecrat mentality. Would you like to give either a shout-out since they were once popular? Enlightened thought can escape the masses as easily it can escape the moment, and usually does.

"Were you one of the people who expected Westernized liberals to win the Iraqi elections? "

Actually I'm one of those people who can spot the advantage of self-destiny vs. mindless oppressions. Take a look at the mideast in general. Man, there's the paradigm of cultural and intellectual growth, eh? But if you'd like to advance the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood, be my quest. There will always be willing participants to the reign of thoughtlessness, especially when underscored by gods and prophets.

-resh

Posted by: reshufflex at June 11, 2007 10:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Look I'll accept the complaints relayed by George Packer, but Nir Rosen, the Raymond Bonner/Herbert Matthews/John Reed of the
vaunted 'Iraqi resistance' which did its best to touch off the
conditions, ala Zarquawi's wishes, that mimic a civil war. As to
the latter point, the MB has been the source of every vile manifestation of late 20th & early 21st century jihadism; from Gamaa Islamiya to Hamas, Gemaa (Indonesia), Jund al Shams,
(Syrian) Al queda-Ilkwan (Saudi) et al; not to mention the verious
Lashkars that arose out of Mawdudi's collaboration with Said Ramadan; in the 60s and 70s.

Posted by: narciso at June 12, 2007 02:06 AM | Permalink to this comment